Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

Both industries are increasingly using data to gain competitive advantageFor those of you not familiar, Moneyball using advanced analytics to better compete against teams that had more money to spend on hiring star playersManager crunched numbers to figure out which players were undervaluedLike baseball, staffing is another industry where: Metrics &amp; targets drive day-to-day activityIn turn, that recruiting and sales activity GENERATES a great deal of information

One benefit of using Bullhorn is you get the new reports (we already gave you our shameless plug), and thus can get great insight into how you’re doing A side benefit with using the leading platform is that with the number and breadth of recruiters using our system, we can help you benchmark your businessWe’ve taken the liberty of looking at the data in these reports, analyzing it for most of the firms represented in this room, and today I’d like to give out awards that recognize some of the top performersNote: categorized by size; may not have everyone’s data, especially if you signed up relatively recently

Cleanest dataLooked at key ratios (fill rate + a number of other workflow-related activities) – who entered the data most accurately, without irregularitiesGrouped by business size (# recruiters)

Stating the obvious: the insights you can glean from your data is only as good as the data itselfFor example: actual data from several branches of one of the companies represented in this roomA lot of firms had 1 rogue branch; this one had several branchesGoal is not to call anyone out, it’s to highlight the importance of ensuring clean, accurate dataAs the old saying goes, GIGO:Bullhorn is very flexible, and our customers are good at implementing it in a way that aligns w/ the workflow. But, the other key piece is to ensure you have the right processes in place.In other words, good data doesn’t just happen

Prizes

Can’t win if don’t put talent on the fieldFree agents vs. homegrown from the minor leagues (aka farm system)Paid sources (job boards, etc.) = free agents: they will bring immediate results, but at a cost – what is the ROI?“Homegrown” sources (social networks/Reach/referrals) = minor leaguers: requires longer term effort to nurture contacts, but pays off greatly down the roadSo the question is, how many of your candidates are Free Agents, and how many come up through your Farm System?

Top 3 = farm system, homegrown talent nurtured over time11% of candidates sourced from within existing networksTop job boards, 41% of all candidates sourced by you this yearNot necessarily problematic – reflects different approaches for different roles, time constraints, etc.But, looking at these can tell you Actual ROI of each source (pay X for postings, earned $X from it)And then, where to invest time, effort, $$

Starts/PositionsFiltered out the “bad data” outliers as in the earlier exampleCan be a useful to compare branches to one anotherOf course, must take a slew of other factors into consideration – industry, type of role, local labor market, etc.

DescriptionX-axis: Fill Rate (starts/positions hiring for)Y-axis: for each company, look at the difference between its top and bottom branches; then, avg across companiesFor variation of small agencies, only looked at companies that had 2+ branchesKey TakeawaysNot much difference in Fill Rates by sizeBig difference in consistency – small companies have some very high-performing and very low-performing branches

DescriptionX-axis: Fill Rate (starts/positions hiring for)Y-axis: for each company, look at the difference between its top and bottom branches; then, avg across companiesFor variation of small agencies, only looked at companies that had 2+ branchesKey TakeawaysNot much difference in Fill Rates by sizeBig difference in consistency – small companies have some very high-performing and very low-performing branches

According to Bullhorn Survey respondents: Hit rate (the number of applicants making it to successive rounds of the selection process) = most important metricIt’s about accuracy, and reflects:A) How attuned to client’s needs &amp; preferencesB) How effective at finding candidates with right credentials and right fit

DescriptionX-axis: Ratio of starts/submissionsY-axis: for each company, look at the difference between its top and bottom branches; then, avg across companiesFor variation of small agencies, only looked at companies that had 2+ branchesFrom Small to Medium: much less variation – processes in place, etcFrom Medium to Large: significant improvement in ratioHere, the top branches at Medium and Large firms outperformed top branches at small companies (bad branches consistent across sizes; good branches better at Med/Large firms)Is there a correlation between hit rate and source diversity?

DescriptionX-axis: Ratio of starts/submissionsY-axis: for each company, look at the difference between its top and bottom branches; then, avg across companiesFor variation of small agencies, only looked at companies that had 2+ branchesFrom Small to Medium: much less variation – processes in place, etcFrom Medium to Large: significant improvement in ratioHere, the top branches at Medium and Large firms outperformed top branches at small companies (bad branches consistent across sizes; good branches better at Med/Large firms)Is there a correlation between hit rate and source diversity?

az-TIE-rah

Already looked at metrics/benchmarks from the internal perspective of management, i.e., how well are we performingMVP is from the client’s perspective – how do they perceive your performance?

Everyone probably has some clients who love you, and some where you may not be standing outExplanation: Fill Rates brokeninto 4 categories, from low to high (x-axis)% of clients where that fill rate applies toIn English: For ~1/3 of your clients, you fill less than 1/4 of the jobs you work onVery similar breakdown across sizesLarge firms do slightly better at limiting the # of clients where value-added is smallWhy the low fill rates? Less familiarity (new vertical, new geo, new relationship, etc)Overpromising?Where you have high fill rates, leverage those stories to SELL – to those clients, and to others

Everyone probably has some clients who love you, and some where you may not be standing outExplanation: Fill Rates brokeninto 4 categories, from low to high (x-axis)% of clients where that fill rate applies toIn English: For ~1/3 of your clients, you fill less than 1/4 of the jobs you work onVery similar breakdown across sizesLarge firms do slightly better at limiting the # of clients where value-added is smallWhy the low fill rates? Less familiarity (new vertical, new geo, new relationship, etc)Overpromising?Where you have high fill rates, leverage those stories to SELL – to those clients, and to others

MVP calculated by looking at the fill rate for each client, and averaging them

Turn on your reportsUse internal benchmarks – Most productive recruiters, branches, etc.Track over time Trending up or down?